七战功成

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, 七战功成. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! GotR ^Talk 03:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Hello, I'm EncMstr. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! —EncMstr (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Dome C, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. —EncMstr (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Infobox stats

Hi, the infobox accounts for league stats only. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you recently removed some content from List of weather records  with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Overview

You can join the discussion here. Kante4 (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Demographics of India does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Kautilya3 (talk) 07:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Álvaro Morata

Hello from Portugal,

please, read the Juventus storyline and his reference #33. He was INJURED and did not even seat on the bench, he does not get honour.

Happy editing --Be Quiet AL (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Supercup 2016

Hey bro can you report peejay? He's taking away Ronaldo 's honours away on purpose Aavelarx (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Uhhhh, of course sites related to Ronaldo and Real Madrid aren't independent. In fact, they are the exact opposite of independent. They can be reliable for certain things, but definitely not in cases like this when they're just trying to make their players look good. Ronaldo wasn't even involved in the Super Cup, for goodness' sake! And don't try telling me his contribution to the Champions League win counts as being involved, because it doesn't - the Super Cup is a completely different competition. – PeeJay 01:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Really? What about youth players? Did they all win the competition as well? I guess they must have since they all play for Real Madrid. I mean, I know they didn't play any part in the game, but I guess if they're contracted to the club, they must have won it too, right?</sarcasm> Of course, that's utterly ridiculous, as is the idea that Ronaldo "won" the Super Cup despite not playing any part in the game. Same goes for Bale. Who cares if they got medals? They didn't feature in the game, even on the bench, therefore they didn't win the competition. – PeeJay 07:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Uhhhh, are you aware that BBC source you readded to Bale's page doesn't actually say anything about him winning the Super Cup. Perhaps if you checked your sources you might be less wrong sometimes. – PeeJay 11:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

But there's no proof that Bale himself is considered a winner of that competition by anyone other than Real Madrid. No other site considers him a winner, and the burden of proof is on you to show that he is. – PeeJay 19:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

But you haven't provided any proof at all that Bale himself is considered a winner. There was proof there that Real Madrid won the competition, that's fine, but Bale was not involved in the game in any way, and the only source that supports considering him a winner of that competition is Real Madrid's own website. Show me an independent site that considers him a winner and I'll change my tune, but right now it's you who's resorting to sophistry. – PeeJay 19:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you actually understand English? Independent means "not published by either the player or his club". Oh, and if you try to put words in my mouth like that again, I will not be at all happy with you. – PeeJay 19:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Um, no, it's actually Wikipedia policy that sources have to be independent. Otherwise people could publish whatever they wanted about themselves and use it as a source. Obviously that's not allowed. And if you don't care if I'm happy with your attitude, I'd have to say you're clearly not here to work collaboratively. – PeeJay 19:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Hello, I'm Tbhotch. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Gareth Bale, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 19:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Cristiano Ronaldo shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 19:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:七战功成 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: ). Thank you. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Gareth Bale. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, 七战功成. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Results

It was dicussed to use the new module. Stop changing it or you risk to get blocked. Kante4 (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

There were two discussions at the module site and the sub module. Kante4 (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Here for example. Kante4 (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Your recent editing history at Objections to evolution shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please stop your unexplained edit is corrupting the reference Theroadislong (talk) 11:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Super Cup

It was discussed that the player who were not in the squad do not have it listed. See the Ronaldo talk page for more input. Kante4 (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Nope. As you see other editors revert you aswell. Transfermarkt is not reliable and of course RM lists them. It was agreed to just include players that were in the squad for that game. Kante4 (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Or you could open a new discussion if you feel that way instead of reverting and risking to getting blocked. Kante4 (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

You need to start contributing to Wikipedia in a more constructive way instead of making circular arguments about Ronaldo and the 2016 Super Cup. Either start contributing in some other way or find a new hobby. – PeeJay 19:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

If you start editing against consensus, you will be reported. You have been reverted by several editors. Kante4 (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Cristiano Ronaldo, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kante4 (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Pepe (footballer, born 1983). Qed237 (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, 七战功成. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2017 Kansas City Chiefs season. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Rockchalk717 02:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

This was generated by your unexplained (and unneeded) removal of content in this edit.--Rockchalk717 02:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at 2017 Kansas City Chiefs season.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. This time it's for what I'm 100% positive is about to turn into an Edit war Rockchalk717 03:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at 2017 Kansas City Chiefs season. Rockchalk717 05:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

BEFORE reverting again, which would be a violation of WP:3RR (which you apparently have a history of doing), the stats you are removing are for the game summary for the playoff game which was only on there once. I checked your version and that game summary has no stats on it. So no, you aren't removing something that is a duplicate.--Rockchalk717 05:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I see what you're trying to fix now. I have corrected it. That was my mistake when I added the hidden playoff game summary. It already had the hidden template (<!-- -->) on the weather template which caused the ones around the game summary not to function.--Rockchalk717 05:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

July 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Orders of magnitude (length). CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:2012–13 Premier League table. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Dawnseeker2000 01:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, 七战功成. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, 七战功成. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello 七战功成, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Meatsgains(talk) 01:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Undoing CFB schedule conversions

Why are you undoing the CFB schedule conversions done by PrimeBOT? You are reverting good conversions back to a deprecated template. If you have a problem with the new template or the conversion process, you should discuss it at WT:CFB Ostealthy (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Username

Hi, I just wanted to make a quick comment about your username. As per Wikipedia:Username policy, a non-Latin username is allowed, but can be problematic. From Wikipedia:Signatures;

Non-Latin Signatures

Editors with non-Latin usernames are welcome to edit in Wikipedia. However, non-Latin scripts, such as Arabic, Armenian, Chinese, Cyrillic, Greek, Hebrew, Indic scripts, Japanese, Korean, Persian, Thai and others, are illegible to most other contributors of the English Wikipedia. Not everyone uses a keyboard that has immediate access to non-Latin characters, and names that cannot be pronounced cannot be retained in memory. As a courtesy to the rest of the contributors, users with such usernames are encouraged to sign their posts (at least in part) with Latin characters. For an example refer to User:Παράδειγμα, who signs his posts as Παράδειγμα/Paradigma.

I understand your username is apparently Chinese, and (roughly) translates to "Seven battles". I'm not sure what the significance of that is to you, but if you would consider adding that, or another Latinized name or word to your signature, it would make interacting with you a great deal easier for your fellow editors. To attach a Latinized word or name to your signature, just go to "Preferences", and on the first page, under "User Profile", scroll down to "Signatures". There you will see a text box where you can customize your signature to your liking (you will notice a large number of unique, colorful and creative signatures among the various talk pages here) and you will be able to modify your signature with an add-on in Latin script that will help others identify you and communicate with you. I hope this helps, and happy editing!. - wolf 06:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

CFB editing

Hi, just a couple of things:

• Can you explain your reversion of my edits at Alabama–Clemson football rivalry? I linked a discussion at WikiProject College football that determined that the compact vs. expanded rivalry tables issue can be decided "on a case-by-case basis".
• Also, I glanced at your contribs, and the conversion of hyphens to en-dashes in CFB schedule templates is welcome but unnecessary; the template automatically converts any non-alphanumeric character to a endash (it could even be a colon).

Thanks, PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@PCN02WPS: I didn't check the wiki page just now. I think I already explained the reason when I reverted it and that could be easily seen in the edit history. As for the conversion of hyphens to en-dashes, the automatic conversion did exist before the end of last month (it always show en-dashes even you input hyphens), but after the templates was converted into another version, this function didn't work anymore, so all the hyphens began to show up and it really didn't look very good and I did that. 七战功成 02:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

I reverted your edit at Protostome because you changed the number of deuterostome species without providng an explanation or a source to support your change. I do not have access to the Dawkins book, and haven't found another source that provides a number for deuterostome species, so I would appreciate either a comment on what Dawkins gives for the number of species, or a citation to another source for there being 80,000 species. Thank you. - Donald Albury 17:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi 七战功成,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 16:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi 七战功成,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi 七战功成,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

Your recent editing history at Creation–evolution controversy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Theroadislong (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

TalkOrigins

TalkOrigins is not a reliable source. See WP:RS. Guy (help!) 22:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

Please stop adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did on North Rhine-Westphalia. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Unsourced, maybe--unexplained, certainly. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, but please explain this the first time. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

January 2020

Hello, I'm Donald Albury. Your recent edit(s) to the page Animal appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - Donald Albury 03:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019–20 Milwaukee Bucks season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019–20 Detroit Pistons season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brandon Knight (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

total number of corona-cases

Hi! Please note, that the total number of cases as well as the number of deaths apears twice in each days entry! If you correct one, please do correct the other as well! For example:

• 2020-04-21;40082;82923;801207;;;801,207;+3.3%;40,082;+7.0% (formally correct as 801207 matches 801,207)
• 2020-04-22;42209;84050;831458;;;830,588;+3.7%;42,200;+5.3% (your change is formally incorrect as 831458 does not match 830,588. Please fix this!) --Boobarkee (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Jiahu symbols. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 12:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

General sanctions alert for Covid-19

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Doug Weller talk 12:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Effect of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake on Indonesia does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Dawnseeker2000 05:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dawnseeker2000: I know this, but this edit just corrected a small but obvious mistake (The word "seven waves" doesn't make any sense) so I didn't write down the reason. 七战功成 06:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Hello, I'm MarkH21. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Mongol invasions of Vietnam, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: That edit was according to the article's content. That doesn't need extra citation 七战功成 03:13, 5 Novermber 2020 (UTC)

All challenged material must have an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution (emphasis mine). This is basic policy outlined at Wikipedia's verifiability policy. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Mongol invasions of Vietnam shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: What do you mean by leaving this message here? Are you administrators? You have rights to block others? 03:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not administrator but this is a warning. Use the talk page where a discussion section has already been opened rather than continuing to revert your unreferenced material back in. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Warning? You may deserve this more. Before the discussion begin, you just can't wait to "warn" others like an administrator? It's really not sincere at all. 七战功成 03:46, 5 November 2020

You reverted when I had 1) already opened a discussion on the talk page, 2) pinged you at that discussion, and 3) pointed towards there with an edit summary.

You made three reverts at the article, so this was informing you that you are approaching the three-revert-rule. Any editor can issue warnings by the way, not just administrators. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: I checked the history. My last edit was in the same minute as you opened the discussion. I didn't know which one is earlier, but at least I didn't know you opened it when I made that edit. The other things are not worth arguing about. I think this is all here and just focused on that discussion. 七战功成 04:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Warnings are not an Administrative privileges. Far from it - we expect ordinary editors to use them and the system wouldn't function without that. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crazy Stone (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sichuanese.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Tom Brady. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Really? A four-month-old reference is so out of date that you feel you have to blank the content? If you have a better ref then add it , but don't delete the content in the mean time. It's more than a bit difficult to assume good faith when you just tried unsuccessfully to delete the same information for a different reason. Meters (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Meters: How is that disruptive? I already said that I would add a new source, you didn't see? It's your behaviour appears disruptive. 七战功成 04:28, 9 Febuary, 2021 (UTC)

No, in my opinion it appeared that you were leaving a fake edit summary in an attempt to blank content. The source is not out of date, and there was no reason to remove the content even if you were going to provide amore recent source. Meters (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Meters: Ok, maybe I didn't describe it right. I mean some of the content of that source, which Bundchen said that Brady is a Catholic, is outdated. Now I already provide a new source. It's enough to replace that one. 七战功成 04:36, 9 Febuary, 2021 (UTC)

Really? You replaced a four-month-old reference with a six-year-old reference because you thought the four-month-old one was dated? Take it to the talk page or leave this alone. You are not making it any easier to AGF. Meters (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Meters: Do you have trouble understanding simple sentences? I already said it's some contents it mentioned are outdated, not the whole source is outdated. Understand? 七战功成 06:55, 9 Febuary, 2021 (UTC)

That's getting dangerously close to a person attack. I have no trouble at all understanding simple sentences, or complicated ones. Perhaps it's you who are having trouble understanding English?A "dated" source is not one that you disagree with. It's an old source where the information may have changed. If you are calling a December 2020 source dated then you must have a more recent source that says something else, not a 2015 source. Either discuss this on the article's talk page or leave it alone. I have removed the entire religion comment until someone provides a recent reliable source on what Brady himself says. Meters (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Meters: You don't? You obviously are. I said it's some contents are outdated, not the whole source is outdated. How many times I have to say? Are you pretending not to see this? Your sources are new don't mean it won't contain something old or even wrong, and that's what I mean. The relatively new source includes what Bundchen said about Brady's religion, but that happened not long after Brady dated Bundchen, which was in 2006 or 2007. It was obviously earlier than what Brady himself said about his beliefs, which is mentioned in the source I added. So I choose this one over that new one. I don't think it's that hard to understand for normal people. 七战功成 07:14, 9 Febuary, 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

February 2022

Hello, I'm Venkat TL. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Lakhimpur Kheri district, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Venkat TL (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: I just revert them back. You don’t notice those newly-added contents were simply messed up and unreailable? 七战功成 09:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Tennis article capitalization

A few months ago, all tennis draw articles were moved from e.g. 2022 Australian Open – Men's Singles to 2021 Australian Open – Men's singles, with redirects from the old titles to the new ones. This left many redirects in player articles and career statistics articles. The problem with leaving these redirects there is that editors will try to copy them and just change the year to link new events e.g. copy 2021 Miami Open – Men's Singles to make 2022 Miami Open – Men's Singles, which is a red link because the article is at 2022 Miami Open – Men's singles. That's why all those articles were updated to link directly to the new titles, and you shouldn't revert those changes. Some new red links were created during those changes, but they will all be fixed by a bot in a few days. Letcord (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dome C. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

@迷斯拉10032号: That table has no reliable source so I deleted it. How is that unconstructive and vandalism? You can’t notice that?

September 2022

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Common frog, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. It would be helpful to your colleagues here if you would leave edit summaries. Thank you in advance for considering this. Eric ^talk 17:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

It’s clearly duplicated content, you haven’t noticed that? Your behavior is really not constructive. 七战功成 (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

After seeing your revert, I did see that the content was duplicated. An edit summary would have saved both of us time. Eric ^talk 17:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I thought that’s obvious. Maybe you don’t need to leave messages on other’s talk page right away after they make an edit. 七战功成 (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I do not always look at the timestamp of every edit. When I see an unexplained deletion of reasonable-looking material, I do not scrutinize the article to see if I can guess why it might have been deleted. I revert the change, explaining why I reverted it. Edit summaries save everyone time. Now you have wasted more of our time complaining here about my perfectly reasonable edit. Eric ^talk 18:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you reverted it and you already left that edit summary. Why left another message on other’s talk page if you are not sure about the reason? Your wording and the behavior itself really looked aggressive. That’s what I mainly talked about. It’s not even close to being “perfectly reasonable”. 七战功成 (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

If you find my "behavior" "aggressive", you may want to take a break from collaborating on a reference work, especially if you are not inclined to explain your edits for the rest of the community. Eric ^talk 01:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Of course your wording and behavior is aggressive. You reverted that edit and already left a comment. Why came to other’s talk page left a message like that? I was not repeatedly doing the same thing without giving a reason, shouldn’t you at least wait for a while to see what’s going on rather than speculated about other’s motivation immediately? 七战功成 (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. GreenCows (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Korean War. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

七战功成 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I request unblock because I realized that my previous reverts were too frequent and overhasty, which was not constructive enough. I promise that I won't revert it before arriving at a consensus. In fact, I think there is indeed misunderstanding, because those people who disagree with my edits replied to me quite fast during previous conversation. I patiently replied to all of them by using sources and adding illustrations. Then all of them hadn't responded for a couple of hours. So I thought they didn't oppose this anymore and made that edit. Actually, that's not a revert as previous ones, I added and changed more contents because there were some minor mistakes there. But one of them immediately came out to try to stop me from continuing. I just want to explained my behavior to prove that I did not intend to make trouble. But he did not listen to this and reported me, then my account was blocked. I don't think the result is proper enough.七战功成 (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Converted to a one-week partial block as discussed below. Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

At this point, I don't think you are, or will be, in a position to determine consensus. That said, I am willing to convert the 72-hour sitewide block into a one-week partial block that would prevent you from editing the article but permit you to continue the discussion on its Talk page. Let me know if you prefer that.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems that this is the best option at this time. Ok, I will take that. 七战功成 (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

If someone does not respond it does not mean they have changed their mind, in fact unless they say otherwise it should be taken to mean they have not. They just have no more to add to what they have already said. Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Graham87 15:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The fact that you thought to make an unsourced and unexplained change of figures to Human body weight after nine years of editing and after already having been warned and blocked for such behaviour demonstrates a staggering level of incompetence. Graham87 15:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, this message about your username and signature required a response and action. Ignoring it for four years was not the right thing to do. Graham87 16:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

And you had a disputed aggravated by not using edit summaries just last year ... Graham87 17:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

七战功成 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have to say your comments and reasons are quite inaccurate and unobjetive. The last edit I made on that article was according to the source provided, because the previous number didn't fit the stats of the source. I strongly disagree with the so-called "persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content", it's a completely false accusation. I almost always change the content according to the source that already existed rather than adding contents, let alone unsourced. I did argue with a number of people in the past, but every time I had my arguments and sources and they were definitely not unfounded and unsourced, which can be easily seen. Besides, the message about the username and signature did NOT require response and action, it's just a recommendation. According to your comments, you apparently have looked over all the contents on my talk page and made the decision, but I cannot agree with the accusation and penalty. 七战功成 (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The number 68.7 does not appear anywhere on that page. How did you calculate it? I may well be missing something due to my reliance on Google Translate and a screen reader, but I can't find enough information to calculate a weighted average on that page; you'd need the number of males and females in each age group. Also re the signature request, you were told adding Latin characters to your signature would make "interacting with you a great deal easier for your fellow editors". You obviously don't want to do that so you don't deserve to edit here. Graham87 06:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Thewolfchild, who made the original comment. Graham87 06:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Graham87: I tried to calculate the average number of the gender from the stats all age groups, but I may miscalculated it. I may need to go back to check it. As for the signature, I don't think Chinese character are so uncommon and complicated that it will cause a lot of inconvenience (If anyone want to write down my username, you can just copy and paste it, I don't know what else you want). You said I don't deserve to edit here? I defintely do deserve it. Your words already become quite irrational and outrageous. 七战功成 07:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Your ping didn't work and I have no idea why. It's not just an average ... it's a weighted average. The latter is beyond the maths I've personally studied, but as I said above per the Wikipedia article it needs more than weights in kilograms but also the number of people in each group. Re your signature: when you get strong advice from experienced editors you should take heed of it. Even including a Latin transliteration of your username would help. Graham87 07:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t use the wiki last a couple of days, now I come back to reply.

Yes, it’s a weighted average, and the source didn’t provide enough necessary information for people to calculate the average weight of the whole population. So, should not be used there.

As for the signature, I don’t think this is one of the main reason you blocked my account. (I just made some change according to that advice, you can see how it is) I did argue with a number of people about those edits, but every time I had valid reasons and they are clearly not unsourced or unfounded. zhehan 七战功成 (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad we're agreed on the reference removal now ... but the fact that your initial reaction to the incorrect figure was to change it without a source or an explanation, along with your history of unsourced/unexplained changes, is why we're here. Thanks for adding a Latin transliteration to your signature (even though I had to read your message about it twice to understand what you meant). I'd generally expect it more as a part of a user/user talk page link, like 七 (zhehan) or something) ... but there's no guideline about that. I'll leave another admin to deal with your unblock request; they can feel free to do whatever they like with it without consulting me. Graham87 09:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

七战功成 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I haven't noticed the results until now since I didn't use the wiki for several weeks before. I would like to apply for unblocking my account again. I admit that I made a number of mistakes before, and I should not have made changes of contents without explanations even when they appeared to be obvious and I had good reasons. I also had several heated dispute with some other people. While I still don't think they were all my faults, I know my words were sometimes too strong and may not be appropriate. I recognize that my previous behaviors were controversial and really not adequate in a number of cases. I will pay full attention to this and try my best to not repeat those mistakes again, and I still would like to make contribution to English Wiki. 七战功成 (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I think that there is enough here to give you another chance. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)